removeUsersSavedTracks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the maxItems limit already present in the schema, and does not mention authentication requirements, whether the operation is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the action, scope, and limit. Every word contributes value; there is no filler or redundant context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple deletion tool with one parameter fully described in the schema, the description provides adequate essential context: the action and the resource. However, the absence of any output schema or annotations means the description should ideally hint at what the client receives (e.g., success/failure), which it does not. Still, the simple nature of the operation makes the description reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% because the parameter's description already explains it as 'Array of Spotify track IDs to remove (max 40)'. The tool description adds no new semantics beyond the schema; the max 40 constraint is duplicated. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('the user's Liked Songs library'), with a constraint ('max 40 per request'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like removeTracksFromPlaylist (playlist context) and saveOrRemoveAlbumForUser (albums), making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly conveys the context (removing from Liked Songs) and includes a usage constraint (max 40), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The resource naming and reference to 'Liked Songs' make the appropriate scenario evident, but without explicit alternatives, it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.